to think Mumsnet should delete posts in which women are called cis

[violetsarentblue]

I (and I imagine quite a lot of women on here) are fed up with being referred to as cis. I find the term deeply insulting.
I'm a woman and prefer to be addressed as a 'woman', not a cis woman.

I noticed MN are quick to delete posts where transgender people are called 'he' instead of 'she', because that group of people find the term insulting and MN don't want to offend.

Generally we delete posts in which people persistently refuse to refer to people by the pronoun (he/she; him/her) by which they’ve asked to be referred, out of respect for that individual’s wishes.

Please - could we have the same depth of consideration for our wishes?

Thank you.

Venus if you can't be bothered to do any research to back up your points, then I can't be bothered to do any either. You're wrong, I have provided evidence of it. If you are secure in your belief that you know more about sex reassignment surgery than the NHS, then nothing more I can say will get through to you.

Flora - you do not understand gender identity. Again, read one of the links I have already posted.

No it's really not one individual. You need to spend a bit of time on Twitter. And I'm sure in your very broad definition of transphobia, that you'll find lots of it. Not the point.

You haven't provided "evidence" that I am wrong at all. Whether you can change your sex is a matter of opinion. How are the NHS the authority on it? They are providing information for patients, they're not some sort of arbiters of absolute truth.

Almond the relevance is that the main argument of a number of posters on this thread is that transphobic comments may be offensive, but can be balanced against cases like this:

'a poster has experienced her relative's FGM being minimised with respect to trans issues and that was extremely hurtful for her'. Further posts insinuate that this is a big problem: 'Where is the outcry and "compassion" when transactivists shriek "transphobia" at people who use the term FGM?'

My point is that if cases like this do exist, proportionately they pale in comparison to the abuse caused by transphobia.

Of course, the confusion of the past few pages (and of the FGM = cissexist stuff, argggh) is the result of the way in which transactivists have already distorted the language of sex and gender.

Five years ago I was taught very firmly (in discussing gender in a historical context) that sex is biological and gender is societal. Until relatively recently I was also under the impression that this was accepted in discourse relating to trans issues.

The problem is this. If the term 'women' includes transwomen (and I am not saying for a second that it shouldn't) then we can't say "women's genital mutilation" to refer to the practice currently understood as FGM as it is something that only happens to people born with female genitalia (as far as I know). But if we can't say FGM because, apparently, the biological term female is also one we need to redefine, how do we talk about this vitally important issue, and other vitally important issues that attend to individuals with fully female genitalia and sexual organs? If they can't be women's issues and can't be female issues, should we just give the hell up on even trying to fix them?

It is transphobia to misGENDER someone - to call them he when they identify as she, or indeed as he or she when they identify as neither.

It is not transphobic to say that sex is a matter of biology because science is true.

ishoos if you genuinely believe that a person can change their biological sex then I have a handful of beans that you may be interested in buying...

ha - Venus that's rich coming from you 'I couldn't care less what some cobbled together fact sheet on the NHS website says, you can't actually change sex.'

'Those surgeons are completely aware that they cannot change someone's sex.
If someone can pass medicine exams without knowing that humans cannot change sex, then I would be rather worried about the state of healthcare in this country.'

If I have learnt one thing from this thread it's that there needs to be a lot more debate around these issues. I am really surprised about the lack of understanding and compassion around trans issues on what is usually quite an enlightened forum.

Is shoes, I think it is a bit sad to start comparing one injustice against another in that way.

I don't think it s going to increase compassion in anyone to start comparing transphobia to FGM.

A victim of FGM should be able to talk about why genderism is a problem for them without worrying about how often that is an issue.

I mean, street harassment may happen more frequently than genocidal rape, but I don't think we should then start talking about the latter being less of an issue.

My point is that if cases like this do exist, proportionately they pale in comparison to the abuse caused by transphobia.

Really? How do you ascertain that ishoos? Especially when trans people account for such a small proportion of the population (at most 0.5%, I believe).

I love the way you don't think cases like it do exist. Yet you see "transphobia" everywhere. I don't subscribe to your world view. That doesn't make me transphobic. I will respect people's chosen pronouns up to a point, for politeness' sake. But it is done to be accommodating, not because I believe trans women are the same as women. And when trans rights trample all over women's rights, I'm going to say something.

isshoes I do not believe in gender identity, it's existence is a matter of faith. I believe in personalities and, unfortunately, personality traits get labelled and shoved into boxes based on "gender" which are associated with one sex or the other. The boxes are real in that they are social constructs that shape our lives based on the material reality of our sex. Constructs change from place to place and time to time. Sex does not change. The concept of "gender identity" - a feeling of association with the social constructs applicable to one sex or the other at this particular place and point in time - is becoming required and unquestionable dogma out of a misguided sense of pity for people who do not fit into the boxes. Instead of saying "we must destroy the boxes" we are now supposed to love the box and say the box is real but sex is not.

But I don't believe you really believe that. That's why you dodge the questions you don't want to answer. You have to rely on insults to avoid the questions and to stop people questioning.

Society is a dangerous place when people are willing to engage in mass denial of their reason to fit a political objective.

YY isshoes, we're in agreement on something. There definitely should be more debate around these issues, where people feel free to speak their minds. I suspect it wouldn't go all your way.

I would like an answer to my comment about abolishing the concept of gender and all associated stereotypes.

I suspect many more people would be happy in their bodies if that was the case.

would there be an issue with having prisons for "humans with penises (born or surgical)" and "humans with vaginas (born or surgical)"?

Slthy
I would love to abolish gender just bodies and personalities

.But if we can't say FGM because, apparently, the biological term female is also one we need to redefine, how do we talk about this vitally important issue, and other vitally important issues that attend to individuals with fully female genitalia and sexual organs? If they can't be women's issues and can't be female issues, should we just give the hell up on even trying to fix them?

I'd like an answer to this.

Changing minimum standards for prisoners is a human rights issue that would be decided by the international community.

@empress i read that, it is vulva mutiliation, that isn't upsetting

The option does exist for female women to abandon the word 'woman' altogether and leave it to transwomen to use however they like. I suggest fannies for the rest of us. Fannies need specific medical and social considerations based on our biology, including safe spaces that men and women don't access.

Because we have fannies.

Flora remind me of any questions I have avoided answering. If it was your 'what characteristics make them female' question it's impossible to answer. You are talking about a hypothetical person, and even if it were a real person, without being able to read their mind how would I be able to say what makes them feel female? The fact that they feel female is enough for me. Also it doesn't matter whether you believe that I believe what I say I believe.

Venus - of course it wouldn't all go my way. This thread is a perfect example of that. There is a long way to go until people fully
accept and understand transgender issues.

Not sure if your question was aimed at me Empress, but I never said that I agree that the term FGM should be changed.

There is a long way to go until people fully accept and understand transgender issues.

We get that they have issues. The question is, what has that to do with us?

The fact that they feel female is enough for me

And there we have it. Not much to discuss then, is there?

Transrighteous indeed.

And translighting.

isshoes I'm not going to spend my time trawling around when you can easily do that yourself. You avoided answering questions about whether a 6 foot bearded body builder with a penis who says they feel female is female, among other things.

You haven't given any characteristics of being female. Why do you think an internal feeling is a characteristic of being female but being of the sex which produces eggs is not?

I don't believe you because what you are saying is absurd. There is indeed a long way to go before people fully accept the absurd notions that underlie transgenderism.